You are here

Reports and Studies

Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested.

An oft-cited analysis of the differences between court management procedures resulting in fast versus slow processing and those resulting in high versus low rates of disposition. This volume reports the overall results of the District Court Studies Project, a long-range effort by the Federal Judicial Center to assist the work of the United States district courts. The goal of the project is to help the courts achieve and reconcile the purpose stated in Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Specifically, the project has been designed to determine what procedures are associated with the highest possible speed and productivity, consistent with he highest standards of justice. Alternative procedures are examined and recommended.

This report describes a Federal Judicial Center study that evaluated the use of computer-assisted legal research systems in federal courts in the 1970s.The report explained the systems that were compared and the methodology of the project, provides comparative data, and recommended adoption of the "full-text" system for use in federal courts.

An attempt to develop estimates of relative workload in the courts of appeals without detailed timekeeping by judges. Judges estimated the relative workload associated with various appeal types, and their estimates were used to calculate case weights. The report concluded that the weighted caseloads produced by this method were not useful measures of appellate workload, but cautioned that the method could not be adequately assessed given the inconsistencies in the appellate court statistical reporting systems in place in the mid-1970s.

Please note: There is a typographical error in this document. The number VI was accidentally skipped when putting together the sequence of tables, but no text or table is missing from the report.

Also note: This report is reprinted in Part Two of Managing Appeals in Federal Courts, Federal Judicial Center, 1988.

An evaluation of study commitments under 18 U.S. C. Sections 4205(c) and 5010(e). The report concludes that the objective of observation and study--obtaining professional evaluations to support sentencing decisions--has not been met. The author proposes a new model for these studies.

This report to the Federal Judicial Center looks at problems related to the collection and analysis of data that were encountered during the Center's first 10 years of existence. These include the inability of available computer facilities to support research effectively and problems with the data or its documentation.

An evaluation of the first experimental operation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan (CAMP) of the Second Circuit. The report evaluated a set of procedures designed to eliminate burdensome appeals, improve the quality of appeals, and expedite the appellate process through the use of mandatory scheduling orders and pre-argument conferences supervised by staff counsel. The report concluded that the initial experiment failed to provide conclusive evidence of the plan's substantive value but that further analysis is warranted (but seeA Reevaluation of the Civil Appeals Management Plan).

The Federal Judicial Center produced and maintains this site in furtherance of its statutory mission. The Center regards the contents of this site to be responsible and valuable, but these contents do not reflect official policy or recommendation of the Board of the Federal Judicial Center. The site also contains links to relevant information on websites maintained by other organizations; providing these external links is for the convenience of this site's users and does not constitute verification or endorsement of the information or the sites to which the links are produced. Opinions expressed in the materials found on this site are those of the authors, and not necessarily those of the Federal Judicial Center.